About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
of the fact that policy is our means, and they are not ends. we think we were for the court taxes or spending restraint, but those are policies we advocate. they're not what we're really for. what we're for are the good things that these policies will yield to the american people. what we're really for is the kind of society that those policies would allow the american people to create -- together. there is one idea too often missing from our public debate, it is that idea, together. in the last few years we conservatives seem to have abandoned words like together, compassion, and community, as if they're only possible meanings were as some sort of secret code for stateism. collective action does not only or even usually mean government action. conservatives cannot surrender the idea of community to the left when it is the vitality of our committees upon which our entire philosophy ultimately depends. nor can we allow one politician's occasional conflation of compassion and bigger government to discourage us from emphasizing the moral code of our world view. conservatism ultimately is not abo
, cutting spending in the tax code, and then i think it also keeps our promises to people to seniors who worked hard their whole life and want to nothing more than a secure retirement. and to our veterans to 0 who we made promises as they donned the uniform and fought for our country. >> host: what about the issue of changed cpi. . >> guest: i start with a basic notion that social security has enci ad itbutedp our shben ttal n part of the discussion. certainly we need to be concerned about the long-term solvent sei of social security but again when retirement security is question mark for so many families. i don't think it should be on the table during this part of the discussion during the budget resolution. look at the real contributors to our deficit and debt as we try tackle those challenges. >> host: two final questions before we go to calls. callers are ready. this is another article during an intimate dinner with democratic senators. how come you were left off the list? [laughter] >> guest: i have no idea. [laughter] but i have been very pleased with the president's increase in ou
by 50% in five years, but our tax revenue remained the same. hadmember one time we arrested somebody for selling cocaine on a playground. the person arrested was in the country illegally. it took our detectives five hours to determine who he was a trick he had five social security cards. illegal immigration does not only affect people on the southern border. 40% of the people in the country illegally did not cross the border. they came on a visa, the visa expires, and they do not go home. it is nearly impossible for law enforcement to determine who they are talking to it, to determine someone's past. for a minimal amount of money, you can get an entire new identity. we have an immigration law tw reasons. one, to protect our national security, and, too, to protect american jobs. the proposal of the senate gang of eight violates both of those principles. it will make our borders less secure, and jobs harder to find at a time when 22 million americans cannot find work. by offering a pathway to citizenship, by offering amnesty, or what i like to college, temporary amnesty in definitely,
that covers the entire extent. every one of those had to be eat late taxed. the congress imposed a more onerous, more restrict it from a comma rules that on my ability to move money from ppa to ppa. i have small pdas with not a lot of money but for whatever reason decided there needed to be more over the national intelligence program. the effect of the fy 13 of her rations that did help us in that it allowed us to move money around civic and that the money into the path we are committed to by virtue of the fact were five men in before we got a bill. sowo ba dister t it. a cab structure, did allow new start,t also frommocountschss here was what many at the endf the day and of course the of sequestration was doubled because we had to take it in seven months. iraq i was. ealistic impact. >> that is helpful because it provides more of a context of things we might be able to do. again, we have a macro issue of sequestration can watch everyone recognizes it's in packs on your programs. but i stand legislative authorization not on this committee that the intelligence that could have the skinny
possessed in this country? and who would pay for it? would gun owners be subject to still more fees or taxes for exercising their second amendment rights? who would have access to the so-called registry? would the public know who owns guns and who does not? who would ensure that this sensitive information is protected and not used for political purposes, and how? we do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know that such restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy. we should not start down this dangerous road. what should we do instead? i have a few suggestions. instead of undermining the second amendment, mr. president, congress should focus its attention on three areas. first, i believe that robust prosecution of violent criminals is the best deterrent for violent crime. prosecutors should punish to the fullest extent of the law individuals who misuse guns, knives or anything else to commit violent crimes. there should be no leniency, mr. president, what ever for the commission of such crimes. secondly, we should examine and address any deficiencies -- and we have them -- i
every bill is too big and every deal tends to be today. so for example, like on tax reform, tomorrow i would lower the income tax. if we can compromise on the number i would lower it to 17% tomorrow. just do it. i don't care if people predicted less revenue, less revenue means more revenue in economy. if you in an enormous boost to ththe con and we like under kennedy, like under coolidge and like under reagan when you reduced rates, sometimes you get more revenue. that is because the deal is to be. same with immigration. we make it harder on ourselves are the debt commission, we make it a lot harder to find a deal when it has a thousand moving parts but i think we should go with the things we agree on and boom, boom, boom. it's why the rate -- that's why the public is so upset with us. all the stuff we agree on we won't pass because we say that will be the sweeter for the bigger deal. which we never seem to be able to get to one that break up all these big deals into smaller deals? i tried to pass the stand these a, science and technology these is expanding those. i tried to pass it by
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)